The stance [Kevin] Rudd and [Malcolm] Turnbull are taking may be unpopular, but not everything in politics is about popularity. Obviously they have decided in this case it is more important to protect the persecuted minority of Australians who identify as bigots, a minority whose lifestyle is under attack.
Sorry, I shouldn’t use “bigot”; apparently that’s not politically correct these days. I’ll be rapped over the knuckles by the thought police. I’m sure they prefer to be called something euphemistic like “People Living With A Need To Exclude Other People From The Institution Of Marriage Because It Makes Their Own Marriages Seem More Special”.
Even though laws have been tweaked to remove many forms of discrimination against gay couples, neither major party is willing to go all the way. They are not prepared to follow the radical lead set in godless, radical jurisdictions such as Belgium, Canada, Spain and the US state of Iowa, out of concern for the sensibilities of the 36 per centers. The philosophy is something akin to saying: “Hey, gay people, you say you want some chocolate? Have some delicious no-frills carob drops. I don’t want to eat them myself, but I’m sure they taste just like the real thing.”
It may just be possible to find a solution which respects the values of both the majority and the minority in this debate. And to this end I would like to propose a novel legislative solution: what if the Government introduced gay marriage as an option – but didn’t make it compulsory?
Read it all.
I will take comments on this submitted by email only to at KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.
Lisa Pryor: what if the Government introduced voluntary same sex marriage?
The stance [Kevin] Rudd and [Malcolm] Turnbull are taking may be unpopular, but not everything in politics is about popularity. Obviously they have decided in this case it is more important to protect the persecuted minority of Australians who identify as bigots, a minority whose lifestyle is under attack.
Sorry, I shouldn’t use “bigot”; apparently that’s not politically correct these days. I’ll be rapped over the knuckles by the thought police. I’m sure they prefer to be called something euphemistic like “People Living With A Need To Exclude Other People From The Institution Of Marriage Because It Makes Their Own Marriages Seem More Special”.
Even though laws have been tweaked to remove many forms of discrimination against gay couples, neither major party is willing to go all the way. They are not prepared to follow the radical lead set in godless, radical jurisdictions such as Belgium, Canada, Spain and the US state of Iowa, out of concern for the sensibilities of the 36 per centers. The philosophy is something akin to saying: “Hey, gay people, you say you want some chocolate? Have some delicious no-frills carob drops. I don’t want to eat them myself, but I’m sure they taste just like the real thing.”
It may just be possible to find a solution which respects the values of both the majority and the minority in this debate. And to this end I would like to propose a novel legislative solution: what if the Government introduced gay marriage as an option – but didn’t make it compulsory?
Read it all.
I will take comments on this submitted by email only to at KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.